Just Another Armed Citizen’s Frustrations . . .

An Average Guy [not shown] writes:

I found myself reviewing the Chicago Firearms Registration form (a ridiculous concept all by itself) trying to weigh my desire to be law-abiding with my desire to uphold the Constitution and not allow my rights as a gun owner to be infringed upon. I own a few weapons, one of which is a 1911, and another is the “mare’s leg” .22 from Henry. I was puzzling over the list of guns you’re not allowed to register, which is longer than my aforementioned lever action plinker, wondering to myself why Chicago deems it necessary to disallow the registration (and therefore the legal ownership of) any handguns weighing more than 50 ounces, unloaded. I realized that perhaps they consider very large handguns to be “too powerful” for the public (another absurd idea; are we seeing a pattern?) . . .

Since I don’t own a scale capable of weighing to the ounce, I had to go to the internet to find out that my .22 lever action, manufactured as a pistol by Henry with a 12″ barrel, is too heavy to be legally registered.

My 1911, which according to Springfield is 40 oz, is dangerously close, especially since I replaced the wood grips with aluminum. A .50 caliber Desert Eagle? Forget about it.

A Smith and Wesson .44 (with 6″ barrel)? Also pretty close for comfort, at 45 oz. The same gun, with a weighted barrel to reduce recoil for competition? Way too heavy, at 57 oz. Or with a 6.5″ barrel? 48 oz.

Close enough, perhaps for the City to say it’s too heavy, and slap you with a fine for lying on a form, trying to register an ‘illegal’ weapon, and possession of an ‘illegal’ weapon. And probably try to take away all your gun rights.

This arbitrary restriction, which I can only assumed is aimed at the AR/AK pistols & similar, is just one more thing that puts someone who actually wants to follow Chicago’s absurd requirements, but cannot without risking his liberty, into a quandary.

comments

  1. avatar Dave says:

    I saw this 50 ounce limit in the circulated gun control proposal by the governor of Connecticut. I wonder where they all get these ideas.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      From the same place your processed food comes out of…

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        You mean after it’s digested?

        1. avatar John Fritz says:

          Hey, the elephant is back.

        2. avatar Sammy says:

          Must have got the ounce limit idea from Mikey “End the Madness” Bloooooomberg.

        3. avatar Scott says:

          Bingo! You win 3 internets! 🙂

      2. avatar Dave says:

        I meant that in a more technical sense, whether it is a Brady wish list or something like that. Looking over the DC registration rules the other day, they seem to use the California database of “approved” handguns. So, maybe some other place came up with the 50 oz idea first and Connecticut governor is just trying to parrot it. Or maybe it is some gun control organization pushing it everywhere it can.

        1. avatar Crunkleross says:

          I’m pretty sure the 50 oz limit came from the 90’s era bans. At the time pointed at the Tech 9 and similar handguns.

        2. avatar Dave says:

          OK, here is the relevant section from “Governor Malloy’s Common Sense Gun Safety Reforms” proposal:

          “3. Strengthen the Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

          Under this proposal, the following descriptions constitute an illegal, military-style assault weapon:

          = A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following: An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm”.

          So, if it’s over 50 ounces, it’s an “assault weapon”, if this becomes law.

        3. avatar Dave says:

          Crunkleross: Ruger Redhawk may be over 50 ounces, I can’t imagine that was banned?

        4. avatar Dave says:

          Oh, wait, Ruger Redhawk is a revolver, and this weight limit is for pistols. My apologies.

        5. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          With the exception of a few civil war oddities, revolvers tend to be pistols.

  2. avatar Jason Z says:

    dont register your guns. the time is passed for us to think that there is a medium btw being ‘law abiding’ and constitutional. they dont have to remove the 2nd to destroy it. all they have to do is continue to create ‘common sense’ laws that further and further restrict our access until sucvh time as it is so hard to get a gun, and noplace you can carry it that the 2nd is useless. law abiding is another term for putting the chains on ourselves and refusing to use the key

  3. avatar dwb says:

    i fail to understand the legality of making you register an illegal firearm. Dont you have a right against self incrimination? so confusing.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      But they’re affording you the option of incriminating yourself and even making it as convenient as they can.

    2. avatar dwb says:

      well, seems to me the attorneys not the firearms manufacturers are the ones making the real money. why didn’t i go to law school again?

      has anyone really challenged this here is the analysis regarding the NY SAFE act:

      The first way is that the registry is unenforceable. People who do not register, they’re going to be breaking the law. If they break the law, then that will put them in possession of an unregistered firearm, which would be a crime under the penal law. The state cannot compel them to register the gun due to the fact that such a registration would constitute incrimination, which the Haynes decision held that a person cannot be compelled to do that because it would violate your fifth amendment rights on self incrimination.

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/foghorn/interview-with-james-tresmond-lawyer-behind-ny-safe-act-challenge/

      i am not an attorney, but maybe someone will take their show on the road to help the poor chicagoites defend themselves.

    3. avatar Nigil says:

      The problem comes if, should one ever have a run in with officers in one’s home, and they find an ‘unregistered weapon’. Big fine, jail time, and taking away all your other guns, too.

    4. avatar Ben says:

      SCOTUS decision, Haynes vs US. You can’t be forced to register an illegal gun, because it infringes on your fifth amendment rights. Registration is pointless and unenforceable.

      1. avatar dwb says:

        thats what i was thinking. The analysis on the NY SAFE act challenge seems the same. but i wondered why it had not been challenged.

    5. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      The Supremes have held that if registering a firearm would violate your 5th Amendment rights, you can’t be charged with the crime of not registering.

      Haynes V. United States 1968

  4. avatar Anmut says:

    I really want to build a GIANT FENCE at WI’s southern boarder with guard towers and roving armed robots to keep the idiots in IL. Of course there will be a swinging, one-way door from WI to IL for any of the Milwaukee and Madison people that are too smart for the rest of us dumb Sconnies and need to be close to their equals in the city of windy skulls. There would be an entrance into WI as well but you would have to know the password. (Last 4 of the 2nd.)

    1. avatar 01 ZX3 says:

      Hey now, I’m planning on getting outta here asap.

    2. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      Unfortunatly rahm would be the fool to cross the border into Milwaukee(home), lots of great people in the windy city. I wonder what Al Bundy thinks about all this, Randy

  5. avatar ST says:

    That’s Chicago for ya. If the law applies to you, its because you’re poor.

  6. There’s a very easy solution to your problem – do NOT register anything with the city under any circumstances. Your desire to be law-abiding is futile and ridiculous in a city that is run by Machine statists. It’s a ridiculous notion in a city where Tiny Dancer has 4 armed POs protecting his residence 24/7 but the average citizen is not allowed to defend themselves. It’s a ridiculous notion in a city where thugs and gangbangers exercise open warfare in neighborhoods decimated by decades of progressive politics. Ignore their silly rules and ordinances like hundreds of thousands, if not million + of other Chicagoians are.

    Illustrating Chicagoland Idiocy, Mayhem and Stupidity at heyjackass.com

    1. avatar Nigil says:

      While it’s a nice theory to ignore what is clearly an unconstitutional law, the de facto handgun ban was allowed to stand for a long time. And getting arrested and thrown in jail, fined, and having to pay for a long and drawn out legal defense until the law gets struck down is still more of a PITA than the registration. It will especially become an issue once concealed carry is passed in Illinois, and the chances of a LEO being aware of an ‘unregistered’ gun go way up.

  7. avatar Silver says:

    I desire to be law-abiding up until the law violates the Constitution. Then I desire to be a free man regardless of the law. As should any American.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      Are you trying to say that the law hasn’t already violated our Constitution?

  8. avatar Air Force TSgt says:

    Time for a polymer Desert Eagle?

  9. avatar RKflorida says:

    Unconstitutional laws are NOT laws.

  10. avatar Joe says:

    Knowing a few of the street guys, they don’t care if you have anything. As long as the admins and hair gels don’t find out, you’re all good.

  11. avatar andarm16 says:

    The best part of the Chicago Firearms registration process is the prohibited firearms list. Other than the common suspects (Hi point, Lorcin, Raven arms) there are also some interesting choices. I’m talking really interesting as in obscure nineteenth century guns that no one has ever heard of. (Some of which happen to sell for thousands of dollars these days)

    As for the topic of discussion, I’d register a few cheap but reliable guns in the city, but keep most of my guns in the suburbs (Never register anything you don’t mind losing). Most ranges in Cook, or the collar counties have lockers for this purpose. The state police can easily find out every gun owned in Illinois. If the Chicago Police decide that they need more gun seizures, they can go door to door and hit every gun owner. (Illinois saves the information from it’s background checks) Now, if you wanted to engage in civil disobedience, you could buy a long gun from IN, or Wisconsin, but remember never put the gun in your car if you have an NRA sticker. (This led to an arrest of a suburbanite dropping a friend off in Chicago) My advice, get the hell out of Chicago unless you have a damn good reason to live there. (IE you work for the city)

  12. avatar Jerryboy says:

    i would highly advise against registering any guns; they’ll just confiscate them later.

  13. avatar VINCENT MARQUETTE says:

    I do not understand how this kind of thing can happen. they are breaking the law.some action should be taken against them.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email